What is your take?

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

The term itself is disrespectful. 'Redskin' was a term of disparegement used by those of European descent against native peoples. It is akin to the N word referring to African Americans. That one does not mean it offensively does not negate the offense of the word.

If you want stalwart and brave, call them the Washington Warriors. You can keep the Native American imagery, the big tough connotation and still not offend people. Done.

I see your point, I just do not hold it in that context, at least in my own mind. The fans of that team do not either.

The Atlanta Braves came under the same scrutiny in the past, whats offensive about Braves. Besides someone looking to sue? Or try to cement a legacy by battling the big bad white man, who lord over them now.

Natives have taken a legacy from the ex enslaved, who wish to continually use our rotten history against us. Unlike the African slaves, they were at least givin reservations, where they govern as their own. Yet some activist jumps up, to talk about how many of their kin did not get free casino loans. Or free independant land.

The blacks oughta be angry about this. We really treated them like crap, we didn't trade with them, we traded them.